DOCSLIB.ORG

Whigs and Tories: Party Representation in English And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Whigs and Tories: Party Representation in English And Whigs and Tories: Party Representation in English and Welsh Constituencies, 1690-1740 Dan Bogart Department of Economics, UC Irvine [email protected] This Draft December 2013 Abstract The Whig and Tory parties played an important role in British politics in the decades following the Glorious Revolution. This paper builds on the The History of Parliament and introduces new data on the political affiliation of all MPs serving in England and Wales between 1690 and 1740. It then measures the strength of Whig and Tory representation across English and Welsh constituencies and for the first time present maps of party representation. The Whigs are shown to be more strongly represented in southeastern municipal boroughs, especially those with small or narrow electorates. The Tories were strongest in Midland counties and were weaker in counties with a higher percentage of dissenters from the Church of England. The patterns are broadly similar during the Rage of Party (1690 to 1721) and the Walpole Era (1722 to 1740). The main difference is that the Whigs lost strength in the North and gained in Wales during the Walpole Era. The Whigs also lost strength in counties with more dissenters. JEL Code: N43, P16, D72 Keywords: Political Parties, Whigs, Tories, Rage of Party, Walpole, Glorious Revolution 1 I would like to thank the many research assistants who helped on this project, specifically Robert Oandasan, Dorothy Cheng, Amanda Compton, Alina Shiotsu, Tom Wheeler, and Larry Bush. 0 Britain’s transition to more representative government following the Glorious Revolution of 1688-89 exposed divisions within society. The most poignant example is the conflict between the Whigs and Tories. Political parties emerged in the 1670s and 80s during the Exclusion crisis. The Whigs favored excluding James Stuart from the throne because of his Catholicism and views on the monarchy. The Tories formed to oppose exclusion because it represented too great an incursion into royal authority. After the Glorious Revolution, the Whigs and Tories were engaged in a frequent and close struggle for control over the House Commons. During the ‘Rage of Party’, between 1690 and 1714, there were ten elections and the majority party in the Commons changed six times. Party conflict was fueled by differences in economic and social interests. The Tories represented a significant portion of the landowning interest and on national issues they protected the interests of the Church of England and favored lower taxes. The Whigs generally represented larger landowners and financial interests. They favored religious toleration for dissenters from the Church of England and an aggressive foreign policy supported by a well- funded army. The two parties also differed in leadership. The Tories’ best known leader was Robert Harley who served as Lord Treasurer from 1711 to 1714. The Whigs were led by a small group known as the ‘Junto’ who dominated the king’s ministry for much of the 1690s. There was a significant turn in British politics after 1715 when the intensity of party competition weakened and changed in character. The Tories were damaged by their links with the failed Rebellion of 1715, which aimed to overthrow the Hanoverian monarchy and reinstall James Stuart to the throne. Religious tensions also weakened, giving less salience to the Tory critique of ‘Church in Danger’. The emergence of Robert Walpole as the leader of the Whig party was another important development. Walpole used the 1715 Jacobite Rebellion to portray the Tories as a threat to the Revolutionary settlement of 1689. Walpole also courted a new group 1 of Whigs by offering government offices and other perks. Walpole was successful in that he helped to maintain a Whig majority in the Commons from 1721 to 1743, but he could not keep all Whigs tied to his government. Some became dissatisfied and formed a group known as the Opposition Whigs in the early 1730s. It was the beginning of the party disintegration that was commonplace in the mid eighteenth century. The shifting fortunes of the Whig and Tory parties are thought to be crucial to the evolution of Britain’s policies after the Glorious Revolution. In their studies of politics under King William and Queen Anne, Horowitz (1977) and Holmes (1967) show how the relative influence of the Whigs and Tories influenced the fate of key bills in the Commons. Pincus (2009) extends this view and argues that the Whigs and Tories had fundamentally different visions of political economy, leading the Whigs to adopt policies favoring a manufacturing economy and the Tories an agrarian economy. David Stasavage (2003) has made a similar argument that Whig majorities signaled a more credible commitment to protect the rights of government bondholders compared to Tory majorities. Collectively such works have severely questioned the view of historians, like Walcott (1956), who argue that parties were largely irrelevant for policy making. Although Britain’s early political parties have been extensively studied and discussed there is still much that is not known, especially concerning their representation across constituencies. The aim of this paper is to provide a new quantitative basis for the study of Britain’s early political parties. Much of the recent literature makes use of The History of Parliament, a series of volumes devoted to the histories of individual Members of Parliament, constituencies, and parliaments. The most recent edition, The House of Commons: 1690-1714, edited by Cruickshanks, Handley, and Hayton (2002), makes a number of key contributions to our collective knowledge of politics during the Rage of Party. First, it estimates party strength across 2 parliaments. Second, it provides a narrative of electoral politics in each constituency. Third, it gives a biography of every Member of Parliament (henceforth MP) in the House of Commons from 1690 to 1715. The House of Commons: 1690-1714 is an impressive work and historians owe a great debt to its editors and contributors. Nevertheless there is a significant limitation in the data it provides. In the introductory survey, Hayton (2002) gives the total number of MPs in each party and in each parliament but does not provide tabular data on the party affiliation of each MP. In other words, nowhere in their volume can one find a list of MPs by name and by party. The same data limitation applies to the subsequent edition, The House of Commons: 1715- 1754, edited by Sedgwick (1970). Total counts of Whig, Tory, and Opposition Whig MPs are given in each parliament from 1715 to 1741, but not in tabular form for individual MPs. Speck’s (1970) study of party politics in English and Welsh constituencies also suffers from the same problem. Speck gives electoral totals for each party from 1701 to 1715 and provides a list of safe seats for each party, yet no data on individual MPs is given to reconstruct these figures. This paper addresses this issue by introducing newly created data on the political affiliation of all MPs serving constituencies in England and Wales between 1690 and 1740. Specifically the data codes whether every MP was part of the majority party in each parliament. The interest in the majority party stems from the idea that it usually has a great advantage in implementing its legislative goals compared to opposition parties. The early eighteenth century was also the period when the ministry became inter-connected with the majority party in the Commons (Cox 2011). The strength of the Whig and Tory parties across constituencies is also of interest. Various theories on where and in which types of constituencies each party drew its electoral strength are tested. The differences between the Rage of Party and the Walpole Era are also of interest as politics changed over this period. 3 Like previous studies, this paper uses division lists to identify party affiliation. One type of division list addresses a particular bill of importance, like the Peerage bill of 1719, and identifies which MPs voted for or against. A second type of division list comes from party leaders who list all MPs that belong to their party or are considered reliable. An example is the Worsley List which classifies the party affiliation of all MPs in the 1713 and 1715 parliaments. Although extremely valuable, the problem with these sources is that MPs may not fit the Whig or Tory model of voting on all division lists in a parliament. To address this issue an algorithm is developed that combines information from two or more division lists. The approach here is ‘conservative’ in that majority party status is assigned only to MPs who never deviate from the majority party line for all division lists in a parliament. As a robustness check the size and composition of the majority party is examined when MPs are allowed to deviate from the majority once in a Parliament or when less divisive bills are dropped. The new classification of party representation shows that a ‘true’ majority party (having more than 50 percent of MPs in the Commons) existed in 5 of the 14 of the parliaments from 1690 to 1740. The Tories had a true majority in the 1702, 1710, and 1713 parliaments. The Whigs had a true majority in the 1708 and 1722 parliaments. In 5 of the 14 parliaments the largest party was very close to a majority with at least 46 percent of MPs belonging to it. In the 4 remaining parliaments the largest party had between 37 and 43 percent of MPs affiliated. These included the 1690 parliament when parties were re-forming after the Revolution, the two short- lived parliaments of 1701, and the 1715 parliament which was unusual as explained below. Perhaps the most important contribution of this paper is a new summary statistic for Whig and Tory Party Strength in all English and Welsh constituencies between 1690 and 1740.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Politics of Liberty in England and Revolutionary America
    P1: IwX/KaD 0521827450agg.xml CY395B/Ward 0 521 82745 0 May 7, 2004 7:37 The Politics of Liberty in England and Revolutionary America LEE WARD Campion College University of Regina iii P1: IwX/KaD 0521827450agg.xml CY395B/Ward 0 521 82745 0 May 7, 2004 7:37 published by the press syndicate of the university of cambridge The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom cambridge university press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 2ru, uk 40 West 20th Street, New York, ny 10011-4211, usa 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, vic 3207, Australia Ruiz de Alarcon´ 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa http://www.cambridge.org C Lee Ward 2004 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2004 Printed in the United States of America Typeface Sabon 10/12 pt. System LATEX 2ε [tb] A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Ward, Lee, 1970– The politics of liberty in England and revolutionary America / Lee Ward p. cm. Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. isbn 0-521-82745-0 1. Political science – Great Britain – Philosophy – History – 17th century. 2. Political science – Great Britain – Philosophy – History – 18th century. 3. Political science – United States – Philosophy – History – 17th century. 4. Political science – United States – Philosophy – History – 18th century. 5. United States – History – Revolution, 1775–1783 – Causes.
    [Show full text]
  • LORD BOLINGBROKE's THEORY of PARTY and OPPOSITION1 By
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by St Andrews Research Repository Max Skjönsberg, HJ, Oct 2015 LORD BOLINGBROKE’S THEORY OF PARTY AND OPPOSITION1 By MAX SKJÖNSBERG, London School of Economics and Political Science Abstract: Bolingbroke has been overlooked by intellectual historians in the last few decades, at least in comparison with ‘canonical’ thinkers. This article examines one of the most important but disputable aspects of his political thought: his views on political parties and his theory of opposition. It aims to demonstrate that Bolingbroke’s views on party have been misunderstood and that it is possible to think of him as an advocate of political parties rather than the ‘anti-party’ writer he is commonly known as. It has been suggested that Bolingbroke prescribed a state without political parties. By contrast, this article seeks to show that Bolingbroke was in fact the promoter of a very specific party, a systematic parliamentary opposition party in resistance to what he perceived as the Court Whig faction in power. It will 1 I have benefited from comments by Adrian Blau, Tim Hochstrasser, Paul Keenan, Robin Mills, and Paul Stock, as well as conversations with J. C. D. Clark, Richard Bourke, and Quentin Skinner at various stages of this project. As usual, however, the buck stops with the writer. I presented an earlier and shorter version of this article at the inaugural Early-Modern Intellectual History Postgraduate Conference at Newcastle University in June 2015. Eighteenth-century spelling has been kept in quotations throughout as have inconsistencies in spelling.
    [Show full text]
  • Swivel-Eyed Loons Had Found Their Cheerleader at Last: Like Nobody Else, Boris Could Put a Jolly Gloss on Their Ugly Tale of Brexit As Cultural Class- War
    DOWNLOAD CSS Notes, Books, MCQs, Magazines www.thecsspoint.com Download CSS Notes Download CSS Books Download CSS Magazines Download CSS MCQs Download CSS Past Papers The CSS Point, Pakistan’s The Best Online FREE Web source for All CSS Aspirants. Email: [email protected] BUY CSS / PMS / NTS & GENERAL KNOWLEDGE BOOKS ONLINE CASH ON DELIVERY ALL OVER PAKISTAN Visit Now: WWW.CSSBOOKS.NET For Oder & Inquiry Call/SMS/WhatsApp 0333 6042057 – 0726 540141 FPSC Model Papers 50th Edition (Latest & Updated) By Imtiaz Shahid Advanced Publishers For Order Call/WhatsApp 03336042057 - 0726540141 CSS Solved Compulsory MCQs From 2000 to 2020 Latest & Updated Order Now Call/SMS 03336042057 - 0726540141 Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power & Peace By Hans Morgenthau FURTHER PRAISE FOR JAMES HAWES ‘Engaging… I suspect I shall remember it for a lifetime’ The Oldie on The Shortest History of Germany ‘Here is Germany as you’ve never known it: a bold thesis; an authoritative sweep and an exhilarating read. Agree or disagree, this is a must for anyone interested in how Germany has come to be the way it is today.’ Professor Karen Leeder, University of Oxford ‘The Shortest History of Germany, a new, must-read book by the writer James Hawes, [recounts] how the so-called limes separating Roman Germany from non-Roman Germany has remained a formative distinction throughout the post-ancient history of the German people.’ Economist.com ‘A daring attempt to remedy the ignorance of the centuries in little over 200 pages... not just an entertaining canter
    [Show full text]
  • Steven CA Pincus James A. Robinson Working Pape
    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES WHAT REALLY HAPPENED DURING THE GLORIOUS REVOLUTION? Steven C.A. Pincus James A. Robinson Working Paper 17206 http://www.nber.org/papers/w17206 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 July 2011 This paper was written for Douglass North’s 90th Birthday celebration. We would like to thank Doug, Daron Acemoglu, Stanley Engerman, Joel Mokyr and Barry Weingast for their comments and suggestions. We are grateful to Dan Bogart, Julian Hoppit and David Stasavage for providing us with their data and to María Angélica Bautista and Leslie Thiebert for their superb research assistance. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer- reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications. © 2011 by Steven C.A. Pincus and James A. Robinson. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. What Really Happened During the Glorious Revolution? Steven C.A. Pincus and James A. Robinson NBER Working Paper No. 17206 July 2011 JEL No. D78,N13,N43 ABSTRACT The English Glorious Revolution of 1688-89 is one of the most famous instances of ‘institutional’ change in world history which has fascinated scholars because of the role it may have played in creating an environment conducive to making England the first industrial nation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Complexities of Whig and Tory Anti-Catholicism in Late Seventeenth-Century England
    THE COMPLEXITIES OF WHIG AND TORY ANTI-CATHOLICISM IN LATE SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLAND By Matthew L. Levine, B.A. Misericordia University A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in History to the Office of Graduate and Extended Studies of East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania December 14, 2019 ABSTRACT A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in History to the Office of Graduate and Extended Studies of East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania Student’s Name: Matthew Levine Title: The Complexities of Whig and Tory Anti-Catholicism in Late Seventeenth-Century England Date of Graduation: December 14, 2019 Thesis Chair: Christopher Dudley, Ph.D. Thesis Member: Shannon Frystak, Ph.D. Abstract The purpose of my research is to analyze anti-Catholicism in late seventeenth-century England in order to comprehend how complex it was. I analyzed primary (published) sources such as dialogues, diaries, histories, letters, pamphlets, royal proclamations, and sermons to get my results. Based on this research, I argue that Whiggish anti-Catholicism remained mostly static over time, while the Toryish variant changed in four different ways; this reflected each party’s different approach to anti-Catholicism. The Whigs focused on Francophobia, the threat that Catholicism posed to Protestant liberties, and toleration of all Protestants, while the Tories focused on loyalty to Anglicanism and the threat that Catholics and Dissenters posed to Anglicanism. While the Whigs did not change with different contexts, the Tories did so four times. The significance is that, while the core principles might have remained fairly static, the presentation and impact of those ideas changed with different circumstances.
    [Show full text]
  • Grant Tapsell.Pdf (49.35Kb)
    62 SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY NEWS tional, if unstable, fantasy of reaffirmed loyalty to and (at the same time) escape from the traditions and authority attributed, out of filial-piety, to a venerated first generation of Puritan leaders. The Captive’s Position has been years in the making, with remarkable results. It meaningfully engages a wide range of pertinent prior scholarly work by others, and its uncommonly lucid sentences are crafted with care and skill. It is a book that takes the reader deeply into the investigative ruminations and convictions of its author but also, as in all good teaching, proceeds in a man- ner designed with an audience in mind. Toulouse’s opening question, implying a Newtonian world of simple cause and effect, gives way to a more subtle and complex encounter with hard-to-pin-down motives which necessarily remain as elusive as sub-atomic eventuation. The result, however, is a provocative psycho-cultural interpreta- tion comprised of diverse particles–historical details, circumstantial associa- tions and hypothetical propositions–strategically and imaginatively combined to convey a plausible cause-and-effect finale. Grant Tapsell. The Personal Rule of Charles II, 1681-85. Woodbridge and Rochester: Boydell, 2007. $90.00. Review by MOLLY MCCLAIN, UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO. A more accurate title for this book would be “Whigs and Tories after the Exclusion Crisis.” Grant Tapsell does not deal with King Charles II as a historical figure nor does he pay much attention to “personal monarchy” as a concept. Instead, he provides a survey of political opinion in the early 1680s, relying heavily on the work of Tim Harris, Mark Knights, and Jonathan Scott.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Gods and Kings: Natural Philosophy and Politics in the Leibniz-Clarke Disputes Steven Shapin Isis, Vol. 72, No. 2. (Jun., 1981), Pp
    Of Gods and Kings: Natural Philosophy and Politics in the Leibniz-Clarke Disputes Steven Shapin Isis, Vol. 72, No. 2. (Jun., 1981), pp. 187-215. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-1753%28198106%2972%3A2%3C187%3AOGAKNP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C Isis is currently published by The University of Chicago Press. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/ucpress.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. http://www.jstor.org Mon Aug 20 10:29:37 2007 Of Gods and Kings: Natural Philosophy and Politics in the Leibniz-Clarke Disputes By Steven Shapin* FTER TWO AND A HALF CENTURIES the Newton-Leibniz disputes A continue to inflame the passions.
    [Show full text]
  • LOCKE STUDIES Vol
    LOCKE STUDIES Vol. 18 https://doi.org/10.5206/ls.2018.6177 | ISSN: 2561-925X Submitted: 27 NOVEMBER 2018 Published online: 8 DECEMBER 2018 For more information, see this article’s homepage. © 2018. D. N. DeLuna Shaftesbury, Locke, and Their Revolutionary Letter? [Corrigendum] D. N. DELUNA (UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON) Abstract: A correction of an article originally published in vol 17 (2017). In 1675, the anonymous Letter to a Person of Quality was condemned in the House of Lords and ordered to be burned by the public hangman. A propagandistic work that has long been attributed to Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, and less certainly to his secretary John Locke, it traduced hard-line Anglican legislation considered in Parliament that year— namely the Test Bill, proposing that office-holders and MPs swear off political militancy and indeed any efforts to reform the Church and State. Careful examination of the text of the Letter, and that of one of its sources in the Reasons against the Bill for the Test, also circulated in 1675, reveals the presence of highly seditious passages of covert historical allegory. Hitherto un-noted by modern scholars, this allegory compared King Charles II to the weak and intermittently mad Henry VI, while agitating for armed revolt against a government made prey to popish and French captors. The discovery compels modification, through chronological revision and also re-assessment of the probability of Locke’s authorship of the Letter, of Richard Ashcraft’s picture of Shaftesbury and Locke as first-time revolutionaries for the cause of religious tolerance in the early 1680s.
    [Show full text]
  • The Language of Impartiality and Party-Political Discourse in England, 1680–1745
    THE LANGUAGE OF IMPARTIALITY AND PARTY-POLITICAL DISCOURSE IN ENGLAND, 1680–1745 Christine Gerrard The terms ‘impartiality’ and, more particularly, ‘impartial’, play an impor- tant, if curiously under-researched role in party-political discourse dur- ing the period 1680–1745. This is the period that witnessed the birth of political parties in England, following the bitter ideological divisions of the English Civil War and the restored monarchy of Charles II in 1660. Charles’ royalist supporters in Parliament became known as ‘Tories’ and their opponents, who attacked absolutist rule and the succession of Charles’s Catholic brother James, were dubbed ‘Whigs’. Both labels orig- inally derived from insults hurled at one party by the other. The term ‘party’ itself had negative connotations during this period, and both Whigs and Tories made strenuous efforts to demonstrate that they were not a ‘political party’ but represented the interests of the nation at large. Recent studies of the language which the Whigs and Tories used to try to prove their non-partisanship have focused on their rival efforts to appropriate key terms such as ‘patriot’, ‘patriotism’, ‘country party’, ‘national interest’ and ‘public spirit’.1 These contested terms, however, overlap in important ways with an evolving political discourse of impartiality. The emergence of impartiality, as other essays in this volume will attest, is more often associated with developments in science, historiography, moral philoso- phy, and ethics, than with the cut-and-thrust world of party-politics. Yet the two terms ‘impartial’ and ‘party’ are of course semantically linked. To be ‘impartial’ means to be of no party, to be ‘non-partisan’.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Discourse and the Pennsylvania Constitution, 1776 - 1790
    Virtuous Democrats, Liberal Aristocrats: Political Discourse and the Pennsylvania Constitution, 1776 - 1790 Inauguraldissertation zur Erlangung des Grades eines Doktors der Philosophie im Fachbereich 10 – Neuere Philologien der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität zu Frankfurt am Main vorgelegt von Thomas W. Clark aus Frankfurt am Main 2001 If we can agree where the liberty and freedom of the people lies, that will do all. - Colonel Ireton, The Putney Debates But, notwithstanding this almost unanimous agreement in favour of liberty, neither were all disposed to go the same lenghts for it, nor were they perfectly in unison in the idea annexed to it. - Alexander Graydon, Memoirs of a Life, Chiefly passed in Pennsylvania Fraud lurks in generals. There is not a more unintelligible word in the English language than republicanism. - John Adams to Mercy Otis Warren CONTENTS PREFACE vi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xi 1. PART I REVOLUTIONARY PARADIGMS 1.1 Ex Uno Plures or The American Revolution as a Discourse Community 1 1.1.1 Truth and Difference, Republicans and Scholars 1 1.1.2 Revolutionary Pennsylvania as a Discourse Community 18 1.2 Revolutionary Ideology between Republicanism and Liberalism 36 1.2.1 Liberalism Versus Republicanism 36 1.2.2 Classical Republicanism 42 1.2.3 Liberalism 55 1.2.4 Transformation, Opposition, Permeation 61 1.3 Social as Political Conflict: The Few, the Many, the People 75 1.3.1 Rhetoric, Reality, and Radicalism 75 1.3.2 The Discourse of Popular Sovereignty 87 1.3.3 Limiting and Affirming the People: an Exemplary Analysis 96 1.4 Deference to Diversity: Politics and Society in Pennsylvania 105 1.4.1 Quaker Conflict and Hegemony 107 1.4.2 Ethnocultural Pluralism, Sectionalism and the Politics of Heterogeneity 115 1.4.3 Social Diversity and the Emergence of Popular Radicalism 124 1.4.4 Power Struggles, 1776-1790 136 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Anglo-Saxons and English Identity
    Masaryk University Faculty of Arts Department of English and American Studies English Language and Literature Anna Šerbaumová Anglo-Saxons and English Identity Master’s Diploma Thesis Supervisor: Dr., M.A. Stephen Paul Hardy, Ph. D. 2010 I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography. V Plzni dne 22.11.2010 …………………………………………… I would like to thank my supervisor Dr., M.A. Stephen Paul Hardy, Ph.D. for his advice and comments, and my family and boyfriend for their constant support. Table of Contents 0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 1 Anglo-Saxon Period (410–1066) ........................................................................................... 4 1.1 Anglo-Saxon Settlement in Britain ................................................................................ 4 1.2 A Brief History of the Anglo-Saxon Period ................................................................... 5 1.3 ―Saxons‖,― English‖ or ―Anglo-Saxons‖? ..................................................................... 7 1.4 The Origins of English Identity and the Venerable Bede .............................................. 9 1.5 English Identity in the Ninth Century and Alfred the Great‘s Preface to the Pastoral Care ...................................................................................................... 15 1.6 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring Populism Worldwide Faculty Research Working Paper Series
    Measuring Populism Worldwide Faculty Research Working Paper Series Pippa Norris Harvard Kennedy School February 2020 RWP20-002 Visit the HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series at: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/research-insights/publications?f%5B0%5D=publication_types%3A121 The views expressed in the HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the John F. Kennedy School of Government or of Harvard University. Faculty Research Working Papers have not undergone formal review and approval. Such papers are included in this series to elicit feedback and to encourage debate on important public policy challenges. Copyright belongs to the author(s). Papers may be downloaded for personal use only. www.hks.harvard.edu Measuring Populism Worldwide: Norris 1/8/20 8:50 PM Measuring Populism Worldwide Pippa Norris McGuire Lecturer in Comparative Politics John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Cambridge, MA 02138 [email protected] www.pippanorris.com @PippaN15 www.GlobalPartySurvey.org Data: https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/GlobalPartySurvey. Synopsis: Populism studies have rapidly burgeoned but nevertheless systematic cross-national evidence about this phenomenon has lagged far behind. How can populism be measured in ways which are consistent, valid, and reliable? To address this issue, Part I outlines the minimalist concept of populism used in the study. Part II summarizes the pros and cons of previous attempts at gauging and classifying party ideological values and issue positions in general, as well as recent studies seeking to classify populists as a distinct party family. Part III describes the research design employed to construct the Global Party Survey, replicating the methods of previous expert surveys but expanding coverage worldwide and including innovative measures of populist rhetoric.
    [Show full text]